Contents

• Title Page

• 1 Introduction

• 2 Motivation

• 3 Theoretical Background
• 3.1 OPTIMAL Theory of Motor Learning
• 3.2 Literature Directly Related to the OPTIMAL Theory
• 3.3 Flow State
• 3.4 Research in Music Making Relevant to the OPTIMAL Theory

• 4 Personal Experiences Regarding the OPTIMAL Theory

• 5 Research Intervention - HOPE (Holistic and OPTIMAL Practice Experience)
• 5.1 HOPE - The Intervention
• 5.2 Results
• 5.3 Discussion of Findings

• 6 Concluding Remarks

• 7 Tips and Resources for Musicians & Acknowledgements

• 8 References

• 9 Appendices

This chapter will show the data collected from the group meeting discussions that were transcribed, as well as the changes of independent and dependent variables observed from the diary entries, by comparing the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires, and the answers from the retention test questionnaire. The results from the diary entries, pre-intervention questionnaire, post-intervention questionnaire and retention test questionnaire will be viewed as a collective score. Participants will be referred with a number that was randomly allocated to each of them to maintain their anonymity.

One participant, Participant 11, dropped out after week 3 and hence, did not participate in the final group discussion, presentation of final toolkit, and diary logging for Week 4. However, Participant 11 did complete the “Post-project Survey” and a one-to-one final interview.

5.2.1 Group Meeting Discussion 

As mentioned in the timeline, group meetings occurred at the end of every week to verbally collect information from participants on their general observations of the week. From weeks 2 to 4, group meetings also included discussions on the use of the three aspects of the “Practice Toolkit” and how it affected and changed the participants’ quality of practice. Group meetings were generally held in groups of four except when participants had scheduling issues or personal reasons (e.g., falling sick).

All meetings were recorded and transcribed except for end of week 1 group meetings, meetings with Participants 4 and 13 at the end of week 2 (a makeup session and there was a lack of a quiet space), and meeting with Participant 4 (online meeting, had a technical issue with recording). However, the researcher took notes on a notebook in point form during all meetings and in cases where there were no recordings, the data was supplemented from this particular notebook.

The three safe space rules were read out before every single group meeting discussion.

End of Week 1 Group Meetings

Although participants were asked not to change their mindsets or the way they practised, there was a general consensus of increased awareness from filling up “Diary (Week 1)”. This was inevitable due to the need to collect data on the dependent variables. In all three meetings, participants noted they were more aware of their energy levels and the change in their energy levels before and after practice. Participant 3 noted that they changed their practice habits over this week.

End of Week 2 Group Meetings

All participants took part in the group meetings. Participants 4 and 13 had to come for a makeup session together due to schedule issues. That meeting was not voice recorded but was supplemented from notes taken down by the researcher. Common themes that emerged from the group meetings at the end of week 2 were identified. The individual statements made by participants can be found in Appendix G.

The questions of the meeting were:

a) What were your general observations? Did you notice any differences between Week 1 and Week 2?

b) How did you explore “Taking Charge” this week? What insights did you get?

c) How did you explore “Mindfulness” this week? What insights did you get?

d) How did you explore “Immersive Musical Imagination” this week? What insights did you get?

e) In which circumstances did you not use “Immersive Musical Imagination” this week?

Question a)

5 participants noted that there were aspects of the diary and toolkit that were challenging to them. This was due to the amount of new information, or that some aspects did not work for them. Participants were given the liberty to take away the filling up of several aspects of the diary such as pieces practice or observation about practice to enhance their autonomy in the filling of the diary. Furthermore, Participant 11 mentioned that the time aspect of SMART goals was doing “more harm than good”. Therefore, all participants were given the liberty to set goals for the coming week in their own way. The element of time, induced by HOPE, also brought anxiety to 2 other participants beside Participant 11. 

However, participants did note benefits the intervention brought such as improved practice quality (8), increased awareness (5), they were more organised (2), and more motivated (3).

Question b)

Answers for question b) brought light to the varying experience of goal setting in participants, from doing “more harm than good” (Participant 11), to working “really well” (Participant 10). The researcher gave suggestions as to how participants could improve the way of goal setting in the coming week.

Question c)

Notably, all participants mentioned that the mantra was helping them during their practice sessions in the week. Participants were encouraged to “Take Charge” in changing their mantra if they found a need to do so in the coming week.

Question d)

5 participants did note that they got better over the week in using “Immersive Musical Imagination”. However, 8 participants noted their difficulties in using “Immersive Musical Imagination”. The researcher suggested possible directions participants could explore in the coming week to improve their experience in using external focus. 3 participants noted that they knew about audiation before HOPE but found that the intervention was enhancing their usage. 7 participants also mentioned that they found the audiation to be benefiting their practice as well.

Question e)

This question received answers that mainly saw participants not using external focus in new musical material, scales, and fast passages. However, it was interesting to note that Participant 11 mentioned that they used audiation all the time, while Participant 12 used feeling and exploration instead of audiation as a tool during practice.

Other Notable Highlights

It was interesting to note that participants this week seemed to be more exploratory in the aspect of “Immersive Musical Imagination” while not as much in the other two aspects of “Taking Charge” and “Mindfulness”. 9 participants did not explore “Taking Charge” and “Mindfulness” beyond goal setting and the use of mantras. Participants were encouraged to explore more and received suggestions with possible directions to explore in these two domains in the coming week. 

End of Week 3 Group Meetings

All participants were present for the group meetings except for Participant 4. Participants 4 met the researcher through an online one-to-one meeting. That meeting was not recorded but was supplemented from notes taken down by the researcher. Common themes that emerged from the group meetings at the end of week 3 were identified. The individual statements made by participants can be found in Appendix H.

The questions of the meeting were:

a) What were your general observations? Did you notice any differences between Week 2 and Week 3?

b) How did you explore “Taking Charge” this week? What insights did you get?

c) How did you explore “Mindfulness” this week? What insights did you get?

d) How did you explore “Immersive Musical Imagination” this week? What insights did you get?

Question a)

Week 3 saw a stark improvement in participants exploring in the areas of “Taking Charge” and “Mindfulness” after the encouragement made in the previous week. Only 4 participants did not explore more than the goals under “Taking Charge” and only Participant 5 did not explore more under “Mindfulness” besides the use of the mantra. Another common observation was that most participants (10) were demonstrating metacognitive behaviour during their practice. 5 participants also noted that they were overcoming bad habits and/or creating new good habits.

Question b)

Under the aspect of “Taking Charge”, there was a theme of some (5) participants getting better at setting goals, be it through the SMART goal format or not, according to the discretion of participants. 5 participants also noted that they were better at self-diagnosing their challenges (e.g., rest/productivity/motivation/anxiety). 7 participants noted that they were able to come up with effective tools to address their challenges as well.

Question c)

Under “Mindfulness”, a common topic that was brought up in all groups was the notion of self-talk. 6 participants found themselves being aware and conscious about the language they used while practising. Participants also shared some techniques they have explored this week, and a common theme that was brought up was finding objectivity while practising and to not get emotional or judgemental. This was expressed by 8 participants.

Question d)

Finally, under “Immersive Musical Imagination”, 5 participants were noted to use singing this week and there was a general trend (9 participants) of increased use of audiation during practice. Like the other two aspects, there was more personal exploration in this aspect too as well, with participants sharing their techniques during this session.

Other Notable Highlights

Notably, this week’s discussion saw 2 participants borrowing ideas from the group meeting discussions at the end of Week 2. The topics discussed during the meetings this week went beyond the discussion of the diary.

Personal issues such as mental health, confronting fears, guilt of taking breaks, and defining “success” were discussed seriously. Participant 11 notably shared about their struggles with mental health and how the intervention was “overwhelming” as it made them “confront” their habit of avoidance. Participants were more involved with the discussion, offering advice when asked and needed. This is a stark contrast to Week 2, where it was more of a question-and-answer situation. Participants also gave their personal input into topics addressed by other participants and thus, discussions were more organic. Interestingly, one participant (Participant 3) asked if it was possible to continue meeting in the same group setting even after the intervention ended.

End of Week 4 Group Meetings

All participants were present for the group meetings except for Participants 2 and 11. Participants 2 and 11 met the researcher, separately, through a live one-to-one meeting. Participant 11 had opted to drop out of the final week diary logging but agreed to do a post-intervention interview. All meetings were audio recorded and transcribed. Common themes that emerged from the group meetings at the end of week 4 were identified. The individual statements made by participants can be found in Appendix I.

The questions for the final meeting were:

a) What tools ended up in your final toolkit?

b) What were your general observations? Did you notice any differences between Week 3 and Week 4?

c) If you could use just one word to describe your experience in this project, what would it be? Why did you choose this word?

d) Any final thoughts?

For the interview with Participant 11, only question c) was asked. For the interview with Participant 2, only questions b) and c) were asked.

Question a)

For question a) the “Final Toolkit” was collected from every participant (except from Participant 11) and was analysed by counting the number of each technique and comparing the data from Q26 “Pre-project Survey”, “Briefly describe the tools you normally use to tackle challenges in the practice room”. The data can be seen in Chapter 5.2.4, “Data from Final Toolkit”.

Question b)

3 participants (4, 8 and 10) noted that they found little to no change in their practice experiences between Week 4 and Week 3. However, Participant 4 met the researcher 2 days before the final meeting and so their “Week 4” was exceptionally shorter than other participants. Participant 8 noted that there was a stark improvement from Week 2 to Week 3, and Week 4 was no less than Week 3. Participant 10 noted the lack of motivation from their practice this week but noted that there was more awareness. It is also interesting that Participants 4 and 10 noted their enhanced expectancies for the coming weeks.

On the other hand, 8 participants noted an improvement in their practice quality from Week 3 to Week 4. There was no commonality in the themes that emerged. These themes ranged from motivation (Participants 2 and 3) , practice efficiency (Participant 5), self-efficacy (Participants 6 and 9), more consistency in practice frequency (Participant 7), enhanced usage of external focus (Participant 12) and awareness (Participant 13).

Question c)

The answers received for this question had a commonality in the themes that emerged. These were identified as: change, approach, and feelings. 

Words that appeared under the theme of “change” were: “Transitioning” (Participant 2), “Confronting” (Participant 7), “Confrontational” (Participant 11), and “Awareness” (Participant 12).

Words with the theme of “approach” were “Imagination” (Participant 1), “Holistic” (Participant 6), “Observation” (Participant 8), “Exploration” (Participant 9), “Awareness” (Participant 12), and “Organised” (Participant 13).

Finally, the theme of “feeling” had these words: “Enlightening” (Participant 3), “Ease” (Participant 4), “Inspiring” (Participant 5), and “Amazing” (Participant 10).

The elaboration on the answers given by the participants can be found in Appendix I. Notably, Participant 12’s word and elaboration covered both themes of “change” and “approach”

Question d)

As this was the last meeting, the researcher added this question in to freely let participants chime in on their thoughts about their thoughts about the project, practising, or about anything in general. Just like the previous week, these discussions tended to be organic, with participants being open and honest about their thoughts and feelings. There were a few themes that emerged from this question: benefits of the group meeting discussions, feedback for the researcher, the way their lives were intertwined with practice, future directions that participants wanted to take after the intervention, and the pressure or anxiety brought about by the intervention. 

Notable Highlight

Participants were asked to fill in the “Post-project Survey” at the end of this group meeting discussion. Participant 8 noted that, “But here (post-project survey), the 8 I gave in the earlier survey will be a different 8 in the survey here. Here, it will be like that 'cause maybe I'm going to say “Most of the time again”. Maybe I'm even more strict because I'm more aware of things. So this is going to be a different 8” (Participant 7).

[Next: Chapter 5.2.2 - Data from Diary Entries]

5.2

Results

5.2.2 Data from Diary Entries

The data collected from the diary over four weeks were processed and calculated through these steps:

1) Finding the weekly average and weekly standard deviation of each participant’s entry that could be quantifiable. For the question that used the scale of “Not at all” to “All the time”, it was converted to a 1-5 scale, with 1 being “Not at all” and 5 being “All the time”. Energy levels were expressed through “Changes in Energy”, which was calculated through “energy level after practice” minus “energy level before practice”.

2) Averages of all participants were then averaged again to produce the “collective average” (CA) for the week. This was the final “average” score that was used to view changes of the group as a whole, so that each participant was given equal weightage in the CA, regardless of how many times they practised that week. 

3) Standard deviations of all participants were also averaged together to produce the “collective standard deviation” (CSD). CSD was used to show the variation of the participants’ levels of that week. Through using the average of the participants’ standard deviation, every participant would have an equal contribution to the calculation of the CSD, regardless of how many times they practised in the week.

4) CA and CSD were compared across the four weeks.

For those questions that used a 0-10 scale, 0 referred to “Not at all” and 10 was “Extremely”.

Note: All numbers were rounded to two decimal places.

Enhanced Expectancies

Challenges Are Easier to Tackle (0-10 scale)

CA levels for this question were: 5.33, 5.14 and 5.81 from weeks 2 to 4, respectively, while CSD for this question were: 1.62, 1.54 and 1.15, respectively. The data values showed that participants emerged from the intervention more self-efficacious than when they first started using the method. CSD here also showed that participants’ self-efficacy levels were increasingly more stable though the intervention as well.

External Focus

Audiation Usage (percentage based)

The CA for audiation usage during practice over the three weeks were: 24.55%, 31.10% and 38.82%, respectively. CSD of audiation usages were: 13.63, 14.17, 16.22, respectively. The data shows that although audiation usage was steadily increasing, there was a greater variation of how much of audiation participants were using during their practice over the week.

Audiation Levels (0-3 scale)

CA for audiation levels were: 1.62, 1.75 and 1.78, from weeks 2 to 4, respectively. Correspondingly, CSD for audiation levels were: 0.68, 0.50 and 0.53, respectively. This showed that participants were gradually adopting a more distal external focus over the intervention period, with a little less variance in their focal length after the 3 weeks.

Attention

Changes in Energy Level (“energy level after practice” minus “energy level before practice”)

CA changes in energy levels started off slightly positive in week 1 (CA = 0.02), dipping dramatically in week 2 (CA = -0.42) and week 3 (CA = -0.44) before decreasing to (CA = -0.22). This could be attributed to the use of external focus (to be reviewed in the later section) starting in week 2, and the process of using less mental energy as participants became more efficient with practising with external focus. CSD over the weeks were: 1.38, 1.45, 1.37 & 1.60, respectively. This showed that participants were varying in energy changes slightly more as time passed, although not to a huge extent. 

Engagement Level (0-10 scale)

CA engagement levels were generally on an uptrend over the four weeks: 6.50, 7.04, 6.91 & 7.41, respectively. CSD engagement levels over the four weeks: 1.39, 1.39, 1.26 & 0.95, respectively, generated a downtrend. This showed that generally, engagement levels of the participants were increasing over the four weeks while having less changes in their engagement levels through the four weeks of practising.

Motivation

Motivation Level (0-10 scale)

CA motivation levels over the four weeks were: 6.55, 7.13, 6.99 and 7.18, respectively and CSD motivation levels over the four weeks were: 1.54, 1.30, 1.11 and 1.18, respectively. The data showed that generally, participants’ motivation levels improved after the first week, although a little stagnant over the next three weeks. However, the changes in motivation levels within each week also tended to be more stable as time passed.

Enjoyment Level (0-10 scale)

CA enjoyment levels over the four weeks were: 6.45, 6.85, 6.89  and 7.27, respectively, while CSD enjoyment levels over the four weeks were: 1.27, 1.22, 1.10 and 0.98, respectively. These values showed stable increase in the general enjoyment level of participants during practice, while at the same time, having less variance in their enjoyment levels within the week.

Satisfaction Level (0-10 scale)

CA satisfaction levels were: 6.08, 6.66, 6.64 and 6.74, respectively over the four weeks. CSD satisfaction levels were: 1.67, 1.68, 1.47, 1.17, respectively. Although the data show less convincing improvement after intervention than the data from enjoyment level, CA satisfaction level showed a marked improvement from week 1 to week 2, where the intervention started, and CSD satisfaction level showed increasing stability of post-practice satisfaction from week 2 onwards as well.

Level of Looking Forward to Next Practice Session (0-10 scale)

CA levels of participants looking forward to their next practice sessions were: 7.23, 7.55, 7.39 and 7.88, respectively. The CSD counterpart showed values of: 1.60, 1.50, 1.28 and 0.84, respectively, over the four weeks. The data is similar to that of satisfaction level, showing that the intervention was effective in getting participants to be excited for their next practice session, while having a more constant eagerness through the weeks.

Self-focus

Frustration Level

CA for frustration levels were: 2.82, 2.64, 2.48 and 2.53, over the four weeks, respectively. CSD for frustration levels were: 1.70, 1.45, 1.46 and 1.19, respectively. These two sets of data showed that the intervention was able to reduce the frustration level of participants as well as having less changes in their frustration throughout the week, as the weeks went on.

Task Goal Focus

Distraction Level

CA for distraction levels were: 2.14, 2.10, 2.10 and 1.83, over the four weeks, respectively. CSD for distraction levels were: 0.79, 0.92, 0.72, 0.51, respectively. The results show that the intervention was useful in getting participants more focused. Although there was a spike in how much the frustration level generally varied in week 2, the next two weeks showed subsequent improvements.

5.2.3 Pre-project Survey vs Post-project Survey

Questions in these two questionnaires were either open-ended or used the scale of “Not at all” to “All the time”. The results from “Not at all” to “All the time” were converted to a 1-5 scale, with 1 being “Not at all” and 5 being “All the time”. The changes were calculated through the results from “Post-project Survey” minus “Pre-project Survey”. An average of this change was also calculated and was termed the “collective change” (CC) and was used to view the changes of the group of 13 participants as a whole. This section will examine the results that were answered using the scale system, before examining the open-ended questions and their results.

Note: All numbers were rounded to two decimal places.

Autonomy

These questions were asked in relation to autonomy:

Q17: I practice according to how my teacher tells me to

Q18: I spend time deciding what I want to practice before I step into the practice room

Q20: I am able to identify challenges in the practice room by myself

Q21: I am able to solve challenges in the practice room by myself

The CC values of these questions were: -0.08, 1.08, 0.15 and 0.92, respectively. Q17 showed a general decrease in autonomy based on the practising direction of the participants. However, it was close to 0. Q20 showed a slight increase in autonomy in problem identification. On the other hand, Q18 and Q21 showed a noticeable increase in autonomy. With consideration of the four data values, there was a general increase in autonomy from the intervention.

Enhanced Expectancies

These questions were asked in relation to enhanced expectancies:

Q9: I am confident of my playing when I am in the practice room

Q10: I am confident of my playing when I am performing for someone else

Q16: I trust myself when I am playing on my instrument

Q19: I see the progress in my playing from week to week

Q21: I am able to solve problems in the practice room by myself

Q27: Do I enjoy tackling challenges more than I did before this project? (only in “Post-project Survey”

These questions had CC values of: 0.23, 0.31, 0.46, 0.54, 0.92 and 3.92 respectively. Although there seemed to be low positive values from the first three questions, the other three show more promising values. Furthermore, self-confidence and self-trust might be harder to be affected much over three weeks as compared to seeing progress in practising, as well as being more eager for challenges. More notably, Q27 that was only present in “Post-project Survey” had a score of 3.92 out of 5, showing that the intervention did promote a general increase in self-beliefs of the participants.

External Focus

These questions were asked in relation to external focus:

Q22: I investigate challenges through a technical point of view (e.g. bow/air speed, breathing, finger-mouth/left-right hand coordination)

Q23: I investigate challenges through a musical point of view (e.g. thinking of where the phrase goes to, imagining the narrative of the phrase, gesturing, varying in styles and rhythm)

Q24: When practising, I think of how I would like the phrase to sound before I play

Q25: When practising, my focus is directed more towards: (body=0, music/sound=10)

The corresponding CC values were: -0.31, 0.46, 0.92 and 1.54. The results from Q22 and Q23 collectively showed that the intervention promoted a redirection of focus from internal to external. The results from Q24 and Q25 show that the intervention did effectively promote audiation, as well as external focus in general.

Attention

These questions were asked in relation to attention:

Q6: I find myself distracted during practice

Q7: I find myself distracted by my phone/devices during practice

These two questions received CC values of: -0.46 and -0.77, respectively. These values show that participants in general were less frequently distracted during practice, and even less frequently distracted by their mobile devices. We can infer that attention during practice was improved from these values.

Motivation

These questions were asked in relation to motivation:

Q1: I enjoy practising

Q2: I feel frustrated when practising

Q3: I look forward to practising

Q4: I look forward to picking up my instrument

Q5: I find myself happier after practising

Correspondingly, these questions showed CC values of: 0.35, -0.15, 0.85, -0.15 and 0.46. The results for all questions except Q4 showed that the intervention did manage to raise motivation. The results from Q4, however, do strongly contradict the strong result shown in Q3. Furthermore, only two participants accounted for this negative value in Q4. In general, the results do show that there was a general enhancement of motivation.

Self-focus

These questions were asked in relation to self-focus:

Q8: I find time passing really fast while practising

Q11: I am bothered by what doesn’t go well in the practice room

Q12: I am angry/sad/depressed in the practice room when it doesn’t go well in the practice room

Q15: I have negative self-talk during practice

The CC values were: 0.38, -1.00, -0.88 and -0.08, respectively. The CC value of Q15 did show a small reduction in negative self-talk and Q8’s CC value showed that there was a slight decrease of time awareness, which implied a reduction in self-focus. More conclusively, the CC values of Q11 and Q12 showed indications that the intervention brought about a substantial decrease in self-focus.

Task Goal Focus

These questions were asked in relation to task goal focus:

Q13: I create music when I practice

Q14: I am able to identify and tackle challenges in the practice room

These two questions had final CC values of: 0.15 and 0.62, respectively. Although the CC value of Q13 did not show a significant increase in general change of music making, the CC value of Q14 did show stronger results. These results showed that participants were being more able to be productive and be slightly more musical in their practice, implying an enhanced task goal focus from the intervention.

[Next: Open-ended Questions]

Open-ended Questions

Question 26

Q26 was used to investigate the tools participants used during their practice, before the intervention:

Q26: Briefly describe the tools you normally use to tackle challenges in the practice room

Figure 5.7

Fig. 5.7 shows that there was some level of autonomy, enhanced expectancies and external focus being adopted by a handful (4 to 5) of participants. There were also a handful of participants using technical or internal focus (5). Some participants noted they were using singing in their practice but 3 out of these participants’ answers did not show that they were intending to use singing for audiation. Most notably, more than half (9) participants were using variation of musical material during their practice.

Question 28

The answers for Q28 had common themes of giving structure, useful elements and more effective practice:

Q28: I will continue using these techniques even after this project (Yes/No) Why?

Figure 5.8

The data from Fig. 5.8 showed that all except for one participant expressed their interest to continue using the tools they explored and developed over the intervention. The most common reasons participants gave were that the elements were useful (9), their practices were more effective (7), and the diaries and toolkit gave structure (5). Participant 11 that noted “No”, explained that it was too time consuming and elaborate and they would “probably keep a shorter and open form diary to keep track of practice”.

Question 29

The answers for Q29 had common themes of being consistent, honesty or awareness, and the time taken to fill diaries:

Q29: What were the challenges (in relation to using the diaries and practice toolkit) you faced during these four weeks?

Figure 5.9

Fig. 5.9 illustrated that there was a slight commonality (5 to 6) of challenges faced by participants in the intervention.

Question 30

The answers for Q30 had common themes of participants being more organised, more objective, more mindful, and more confident in the practice room:

Q30: Describe how your experience in the practice room of the last three weeks differed from previously (week 1 and before).

Figure 5.10

As seen in Fig. 5.10, a significant number (9) of participants found themselves more objective in their practice, while about half (6 to 7) of the participants noted that they were either more organised, more mindful, more confident, or a combination of these three aspects.

Question 31

The answers for Q31 had common themes of participants seeing aspects or elements of “Taking Charge”, “Mindfulness” and “Immersive Musical Imagination” being significant to them over the intervention:

Q31: Looking back at the past four weeks, what stood out the most for you, personally?

Figure 5.11

Almost half of the participants (6) found that mindfulness and immersive musical imagination being significant to them through the intervention while a handful (4) found that taking charge stood out for them. Notably, 2 participants (3 and 12) noted that the benefits of the group session stood out for them. Also, Participant 10's answer to this question was “This project showed me there is a possibility of improving and that I don't have to be a prisoner of my insecurities and obsessive patterns.”, showing the compelling importance mindfulness had on this participant.

Question 32

The answers for Q32 had common themes of participants seeing aspects or elements of “Taking Charge” or autonomy, “Mindfulness” or enhanced expectancies, and “Immersive Musical Imagination” or external focus, being something they learned or gained better usage of, from the intervention:

Q32: What did you learn?

Figure 5.12

Fig. 5.12 shows an overwhelming success of the intervention promoting the learning of enhancing autonomy (9), and enhanced expectancies (11), while a handful (5) of participants found themselves learning more about external focus.

Question 33

The answers for Q33 had common themes of participants wanting to engage in a similar intervention again as they wanted to learn something new, it humanised their struggles or they would like to talk about practising:

Q33: Would you do something like this again? Why/why not?

Figure 5.13

More than half of the participants (7) would want to take part in a similar intervention again to learn something new, while a handful (4) of participants hoped to have similar intervention as an outlet to humanise their struggles or to talk about practising. Participant 1 noted “maybe” and noted that they “generally feel good about myself and I'm not a fan of severe introspection”, whereas Participant 11 noted “maybe” it would be good “at a time where I wasn't extremely busy and could devote the mindfulness and reflection to my practice structures”.

Question 34

Q34: Which parts/aspects of the project do you think could be improved?

Figure 5.14

The answers for Q34 were either not sure, none, or something that they found could be improved. Almost half (6) said none, and others (6) noted something down or were not sure (1). The answers given by participants that felt that something could be improved in were: more explanation in the toolkit for each strategies (Participant 2), noting the mental states of practice so that the data would paint a fuller picture (Participant 3), to test individual elements (Participant 4), more clarity on required data and extra pages for the practice toolkit (Participant 6), more explanation of visualisation (Participant 9), and shorter forms (Participant 11).

[Next: Chapter 5.2.4 - Data From Final Toolkit]

5.2.4 Data From Final Toolkit

The techniques that appeared on the participants’ final toolkit were collated and expressed as an average to show the average number of tools each participant took away with them from the intervention. Values are once again rounded to two decimal places.

Participant 11 did not contribute to the data as they dropped out in Week 4.

Corresponding to “Taking Charge”, “Mindfulness” and “Immersive Musical Imagination”, the participants averaged at: 3.42, 3.50 and 4.42 techniques respectively. However, interestingly, there was huge variance, relative to the number of techniques between participants, showing a standard deviation of: 1.98, 1.78 and 3.09, respectively. All participants, except one (Participant 5), had an increase in usage of “Taking Charge”, “Mindfulness” and “Immersive Musical Imagination”, relative to the results in Fig. 5.7. Most notably, under “Immersive Musical Imagination”, Participant 13 presented 11 techniques, while Participant 5 presented none. The results of several individual participants will be highlighted in Chapter 5.3.2.

5.2.5 Retention Test

A retention test was carried out 5 weeks, on the 1st of January 2022, after the last group meeting on the 22nd of November. This was done through filling up a digital questionnaire through Google Forms. Results from questions that were on the 0-10 scale were:

Q1: To what extent of “Taking Charge” are you still incorporating into your practice sessions? This includes goal settings and other techniques you have come up with.

Q3: To what extent of “Mindfulness” are you still incorporating into your practice sessions? This includes the use of mantras and other techniques you have come up with.

Q5: To what extent of “Immersive Musical Imagination” are you still incorporating into your practice sessions? This includes the use of audiation, visualisation and other techniques you have come up with.

The results from the participants were averaged out to obtain a value that represented the group, collectively. These values were: 7.08, 7.38 and 7.00, respectively. This showed that participants were, to a great extent, still incorporating the three elements of the toolkit 5 weeks after the intervention.

The open-ended questions addressing “Taking Charge”, “Mindfulness” and “Immersive Musical Imagination” had participants giving examples of their usage in these three aspects. The answers were analysed through finding common themes and collating the number of participants expressing answers that fell under these themes. These open-ended questions were: 

Q2: Please describe how you are using "Taking Charge" in your practice now. Please give examples.

Q4: Please describe how you are using "Mindfulness" in your practice now. Please give examples.

Q6: Please describe how you are using "Immersive Musical Imagination" in your practice now. Please give examples.

The answers for Q2 had common themes of goal setting, planning and usage of time, and prioritising:

Figure 5.15

As seen in Fig. 5.15, almost all participants were using deliberate goal setting, and planning or usage of time during their practice. About half of the participants were using prioritising tasks during their practice. This showed that autonomous behaviour through self-regulated learning had taken root in the participants even after the intervention.

The answers for Q4 had common themes of non-judgemental approach, self-talk language, and awareness:

Figure 5.16

As seen in Fig. 5.16, most participants were involved in exercising metacognitive thinking to enhance their self-efficacy. Although self-talk language was the lowest scoring theme, it was still present in more than half of the participants.

The answers for Q4 had common themes of audiation, and imagery and/or visualisation:

Figure 5.17

Fig. 5.17 shows an overwhelming number of participants continuously using external focus techniques through audiation as well as imagery and/or visualisation. This showed that the intervention was effective in promoting the use of external focus as almost all of the participants were still using it 5 weeks after the intervention.

Q7 investigated the use of diaries by participants and in which format. The multiple choice question was: 

Q7: For my practice sessions, I am: 

-still using the “Diary (Week 2-4)" with all its elements

-using a modified version of the diary (writing down information with some elements of the diary)

-using a completely different version of the diary (writing down information but without any of the elements from the diary)

-not using a diary at all (not writing down at all)

Figure 5.18

Fig. 5.18 showed that more than half of the participants were still journaling (8 participants), and 7 participants were using a modified version of the diary. None of the participants were using the exact diary. Autonomy might be able to account for the modification of the diary. 

Q8 investigated the use of the diary elements by participants. The question was: 

Q8: Tick the diary elements that you are still using to this day:

-Mantra 

-”One thing I would like to bring from my previous session is”

-Goal setting 

-Examining audiation quality (length and levels)

-“What did I like about this practice session?”

-“What did I not like about this practice session?”

-“What is one thing that I will bring with me for my next practice session?”

Figure 5.19

As seen from Fig. 5.19, goal setting was overwhelmingly still in use after the intervention. However, there was no data available to compare the change in numbers of participants using goal setting. Therefore, no causal relationship between the diary and use of goal setting can be confirmed. On the other hand, audiation, mantra and what did participants like about their practice were issues that were new to the participants and they, too, showed values of more than or close to half of the participants.

Q9 sought to investigate the changes in the practice of participants after the intervention:

Q9: Describe any changes in how your way of practising has changed since week 4 of the project. (e.g., Are you doing anything different? Are you noticing different things? Have any habits been changed? etc.)

The answers for Q9 had common themes of disruption to practice, a focus on practice quality, increased awareness, and new practice habits:

Figure 5.20

The common themes of focus on practice quality, increased awareness and new practice habits, and their corresponding numbers of participants experiencing them in their practice suggested that practice quality was being enhanced through these self-regulatory behaviours.

Almost half of the participants noted a disruption to practice after the intervention due to holidays (Christmas and new year celebrations), Covid-19 related issues, intense schedules, or stress. With unfavourable practice conditions and quality for almost half the participants, it further enhanced the credibility of the positive results shown thus far.

Notably, some participants also experienced other new benefits since the intervention such as increased focus and getting back on the right track quicker (Participant 4), benefits of tools from the intervention (Participants 5, 8 and 10), more self-trust (Participant 7), greater enjoyment (Participant 7 and 11), greater confidence (Participant 9 and 11) and greater courage (Participant 11). Therefore, although the data presented thus far has been through evaluating the group as a whole, there might be some value in looking towards certain individual participants that showed data which stood out as well.

[Next: Chapter 5.3 - Discussion of Findings]